WTF is lori Alexander talking about?

[ViolaSebastian]

Hey Aunt Genny, if you don't have anything nice to say...come sit by me. 8-)

[EmiGirl]

Did anyone else notice Ken spelled her name Jenny instead of Genny? I wonder if he's stupid, lazy, or doing it just to piss her off.

[Loveday]

Did anyone else notice Ken spelled her name Jenny instead of Genny? I wonder if he's stupid, lazy, or doing it just to piss her off.

Or he's apparently as big a fan of the Duggars as Lori is. :lol:

[FJismyheadship]

Ken thinks the aunt is in rebellion spelling her name with a G instead of a J. So he is going to spell it with a J to make the point that HIS way is the BEST way, and she needs to start submitting and spell her name right!

[Jesse911]

Does Lori write any of her own shit anymore? You'd think people would get tired of her using their words to fill her blog.

[littlemommy]

Yeah, when is she going to lay some prophecy on us already? Ken swore she was one. Or something.

[usmcmom]

Yeah, when is she going to lay some prophecy on us already? Ken swore she was one. Or something.

Yep. Lori has been MANDATED BY GOD!!!!! to "Mentor" younger women and encourage them to submit to their husbands...(i.e. make them feel like crap for having a different life than she has.)

Also, ALL WOMEN ALL OVER THE WORLD used to stay home, according to today's post. Women need to be keepers at home!!!!! And be with their children!!!! You know, like Lori was.

With her nanny.

And her "as little time as possible with the kids" parenting strategy.

[2xx1xy1JD]

By the low standards of her blog, today's guest post was actually better (or at least slightly less offensive) than the typical Lori post. Guest poster acknowledged that the heart and spirit of caring for the family mattered more than the physical location, and that being a "keeper at home" may look different in different families.

I'll ignore the "women were always doing this" bit for now, except to say that in my family:

mother = teacher (although she did work reduced hours to spend more time with us)

mat. grandmother = did some part-time work, was otherwise busy plotting the revolution and making my mother miserable (she was really interesting and intelligent as a person, but a personality disorder and bipolar disorder meant that she sucked as a mother. She was slightly better as a grandma, esp. since we didn't have to live with her.)

pat. grandmother = worked after her husband died without life insurance and she had to raise 2 kids alone

great-grandmothers = one worked in a factory after fleeing abusive husband while pregnant, one helped run a restaurant with her husband, one helped to run a farm/summer resort with her husband, one was a bit older when she came to Canada so she never learned English (she may have worked, since her husband barely earned anything as a rag peddler).

[docmom]

My mother is a teacher and both worked and stayed home for periods when we were children. With all honesty, I much preferred when she worked. She was happier, more fulfilled and it was reflected in her dealings with us. The assumption amongst Lori and ilk is that it is always better for the children when the mother stays home. In my case, it was not.

[OkToBeTakei]

Go Aunt Genny/Jenny. Wonder what the story is there. Interesting that Ken can not box her up as an evil 'feminist' or shock horror FJ'er or Goggle tactic technician. OR maybe he does. He really needs to just carve it up as those who agree with him and those who don't. Those that don't far outweigh his view and unfortunately for him not all are members here or feminist (as he views it.) wonder how he spins that. I daresay it will be the usual persecution, we are right claptrap.

Anyway, nobody answered Aunt Genny.

[church_of_dog]

By the low standards of her blog, today's guest post was actually better (or at least slightly less offensive) than the typical Lori post. Guest poster acknowledged that the heart and spirit of caring for the family mattered more than the physical location, and that being a "keeper at home" may look different in different families.

I'll ignore the "women were always doing this" bit for now, except to say that in my family:

mother = teacher (although she did work reduced hours to spend more time with us)

mat. grandmother = did some part-time work, was otherwise busy plotting the revolution and making my mother miserable (she was really interesting and intelligent as a person, but a personality disorder and bipolar disorder meant that she sucked as a mother. She was slightly better as a grandma, esp. since we didn't have to live with her.)

pat. grandmother = worked after her husband died without life insurance and she had to raise 2 kids alone

great-grandmothers = one worked in a factory after fleeing abusive husband while pregnant, one helped run a restaurant with her husband, one helped to run a farm/summer resort with her husband, one was a bit older when she came to Canada so she never learned English (she may have worked, since her husband barely earned anything as a rag peddler).

Guess I'm partly to blame for this guest post, as it originated in a comment that was left in response to a comment of mine on her blog. I had a rather bland exchange with them -- guess I didn't express myself very strongly, partly to avoid them deleting it.

I ventured to speak up over there again today, a long comment on the Condy Rice vs. Mrs. Baugham post -- let's see if it gets deleted. (I guess if Ken still reads here then I've outed myself, oh well)

Here's what I wrote:

~~~~~

The reason this comparison fails, to me, is because there are fundamental underlying differences between a work environment and a marriage or intimate partnership. The primary of those differences involves *purpose*.

People are hired to do a job for a specific purpose. Most of the time they are working for an organization that has a specific purpose. Those who work for a government entity (such as the C. Rice example) are bound by obligations to align with the constitution or other written purpose (goal/vision) for that government. Even someone hired by an individual, not an organization, is still hired for a specific purpose -- ie, gardener, housepainter, electrician.

Sometimes the nature of that purpose requires employees to be highly submissive/obedient to their higher-ups, in order to accomplish the purpose. Most work environments are less extreme but still have a hierarchical structure. Some work environments are completely egalitarian, or nearly so. It all depends on what is needed to achieve the purpose. Hierarchy and submissiveness is not there for its own sake, but as needed to accomplish the purpose.

On the other hand, and perhaps this is where we might disagree with each other, a marriage is a *partnership* -- a sharing and support system that encompasses all aspects of two people's lives, including all their myriad goals and "purposes". If we were asked to put into words some overarching *purpose* for the whole marriage, it would be something along the lines of "to foster an enjoyable and satisfying life for both parties".

One's religious beliefs or allegiance to God would be presumed to be a prerequisite for an "enjoyable and satisfying life" for those with religious beliefs -- just to spell out how my description isn't overlooking a person's religious priorities. Likewise if there are children then there are many obligations and purposes that parents have, but that would likewise fall under the umbrella of what's needed to create an enjoyable and satisfying life for the parents, at the time they make the decision to become parents.

So, back to your focus -- if both people in a marriage prefer, for their own personal reasons or beliefs, to have one of them behave submissively toward the other, that is fine. But with the job example, the submissiveness is only due to the requirements of meeting the purpose -- NOT because it's inherent in any way for one person (or one kind of person) to submit to another.

I understand that you will probably disagree with this, I just wanted to share my perspective.

~~~~~

[2xx1xy1JD]

Oh, I was talking about the July 8 post, not the Voddie Bauchan post.

The Condi Rice comparison didn't make a logical argument to me either. Some men submit to authority at work. So what? It doesn't say a thing about why it always needs to be a wife submitting to the husband in a marriage.

[church_of_dog]

Oh, I was talking about the July 8 post, not the Voddie Bauchan post.

The Condi Rice comparison didn't make a logical argument to me either. Some men submit to authority at work. So what? It doesn't say a thing about why it always needs to be a wife submitting to the husband in a marriage.

Yes, sorry, I combined two things in that post -- there is the long comment I just made today on the Voddie post, but I also commented a few days ago on the "self-esteem" post, to which another commenter replied with a long comment of her own, which Lori then replied to with "wow, this needs to be a guest post!" which is what went up today.

[HoneyBunny]

Here's the thing about the whole "until a few generations ago, all women were keepers at home" thing: it's simply untrue. Maybe most white, middle class and above women did stay home, but many didn't, and even fewer women of color and of lower economic status. And then there's the wars the US was in that left huge numbers of widowed women. Women worked. Families survived and thrived.

What really burns me is when conservative people rip on working mothers at the same time they support pro-corporate employment practices that basically make it a necessity for both parents to work. If you want moms to stay home, how about year long maternity leave, a living minimum wage and single payer health insurance?

[cindyluvs24]

But that's evil communism don'tcha know?

[louisa05]

Here's the thing about the whole "until a few generations ago, all women were keepers at home" thing: it's simply untrue. Maybe most white, middle class and above women did stay home, but many didn't, and even fewer women of color and of lower economic status. And then there's the wars the US was in that left huge numbers of widowed women. Women worked. Families survived and thrived.

What really burns me is when conservative people rip on working mothers at the same time they support pro-corporate employment practices that basically make it a necessity for both parents to work. If you want moms to stay home, how about year long maternity leave, a living minimum wage and single payer health insurance?

There is really only a short window in the Western world when "stay at home wife/mother" was economically viable for any but the more privileged classes. Working class women worked for others or worked to make a family business run. And anyone who thinks rural wives did not work has no idea how a farm works.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There is really only a short window in the Western world when "stay at home wife/mother" was economically viable for any but the more privileged classes. Working class women worked for others or worked to make a family business run. And anyone who thinks rural wives did not work has no idea how a farm works.

Yes, yes and yes.

For most people, staying home wasn't a conscious lifestyle choice, although at some point it became a point of pride for some if the wife could afford to stay home because it showed that the husband had a good income.

The whole idea of even men commuting to office jobs every day is pretty recent. In 1870, 70-80% of the population was involved in agriculture in the United States. Today, only 1% have farming as their primary occupation. That's a HUGE shift. Farm wives worked damn hard (and still do for that 1%). We've talked about Laura Ingalls Wilder's book "The First Four Years", which is the least edited and most realistic of the Little House series. Couples did what needed to be done. When her husband got diptheria, Laura took over the farm chores. When there was lots of work to do in the fields, the family dog basically babysat baby Rose.

For those not in agriculture, there were family businesses. It was very common for immigrant families to live above or behind a store or restaurant, and everybody took turns serving customers. It was also common in the garment industry for families to operate their own home sweatshops, where everybody got involved filling orders for sewing.

Women have always worked as domestic help.

Women also had far more to do at home. Without reliable birth control, families were larger. There were no disposable diapers, so cloth diapers were washed by hand. Everything else was washed by hand. Clothes were sewn, not bought. No modern refrigerators or freezers meant spending far more time cooking and preserving food, and not being able to buy any convenience or processed foods.

[feministxtian]

My grandfather owned a barber shop in the late 1920's - 1930's in Philadelphia. My grandparents, dad and aunt lived above the shop. At the time, my grandmother took in sewing for the Main Line families. She may have been "at home" but she was working many hours a day. My dad was about 4 years older than my aunt (they never had more kids and there is a family story that my grandmother got pregnant a few more times and went to see someone to "take care of it") and would babysit her when he was just a little guy himself.

But Lori wouldn't even think that this was possible...because Jesus and helpmeet.

[ThisOlGirl]

I don't know a lot about brain tumors--will Lori always have to watch out for them now that she's had two? I'm thinking if I was in Lori's position, I wouldn't be wasting my time faux-mentoring women. I'd want to spend as much time with family and friends as possible, and be getting every bit of enjoyment out of life that I could. I'd be worried that my brain tumor would come back yet again and this time it would be inoperable. It's not like she has to work, and her kids are grown. I don't know--if I was in Lori's position, writing a shitty blog and deleting comments all day wouldn't be anywhere on my to do list.

ETA: and why isn't Ken, as Lori's headship telling Lori "Honey, this blog and these terrible feminist hags are not worth the time and stress. Let's shut down the blog and go on a cruise. Let's go out to dinner with some old friends. Let's spoil our grand kids. Your health and happiness are more important to me than being right on a blog".

[polecat]

I don't know a lot about brain tumors--will Lori always have to watch out for them now that she's had two? I'm thinking if I was in Lori's position, I wouldn't be wasting my time faux-mentoring women. I'd want to spend as much time with family and friends as possible, and be getting every bit of enjoyment out of life that I could. I'd be worried that my brain tumor would come back yet again and this time it would be inoperable. It's not like she has to work, and her kids are grown. I don't know--if I was in Lori's position, writing a shitty blog and deleting comments all day wouldn't be anywhere on my to do list.

ETA: and why isn't Ken, as Lori's headship telling Lori "Honey, this blog and these terrible feminist hags are not worth the time and stress. Let's shut down the blog and go on a cruise. Let's go out to dinner with some old friends. Let's spoil our grand kids. Your health and happiness are more important to me than being right on a blog".

Because her health and happiness are NOT more important to him than having her out from under his feet. The blog keeps her busy and out of his hair. As for her, what's she got left? Her husband doesn't want to be around her -- by all appearances -- and I'm not so sure her kids do, either. She's stuck at home by herself kicking cats. So why not spend her days ranting at people online? She has to get that bile and bitterness out one way or another.

[HoneyBunny]

ETA: and why isn't Ken, as Lori's headship telling Lori "Honey, this blog and these terrible feminist hags are not worth the time and stress. Let's shut down the blog and go on a cruise. Let's go out to dinner with some old friends. Let's spoil our grand kids. Your health and happiness are more important to me than being right on a blog".

Because cruise ship cabins are small, and Ken and Lori can't stand each other.

Because her kids probably want to keep Lori's grandkids out of the reach of her leather strap.

Because I doubt their old friends can stand the new Andersons.

Because Lori might miss an episode of the Duggars.

[GeoBQn]

Lori is pimping Cabinetman's new blog. Did we know CM is only in his mid-30's?

[Loveday]

Lori is pimping Cabinetman's new blog. Did we know CM is only in his mid-30's?

I thought he was somewhere in his 30s, but didn't know for sure.

Yet another Lori post actually written by someone else. This is getting to be habit, isn't it? :roll:

[2xx1xy1JD]

Again, let's keep in mind from their own words, that Cabinetman had previously told us that his wife was abusive and violent toward him, and that she stated that she had actively planned to commit suicide and had also really wanted to divorce him but concluded that he would still find a way to control her life. He has decided that it's a good and safe idea to have his formerly violent and suicidal wife homeschool the kids on their fairly isolated property while he works. While he's bragging about sex with his wife, let's also remember that this is a guy who has complained more than once that laws against marital rape should not exist, and recommended that a wife who doesn't put out enough should be kicked out of the house without the children and with no money.

[salex]

Because her health and happiness are NOT more important to him than having her out from under his feet. The blog keeps her busy and out of his hair. As for her, what's she got left? Her husband doesn't want to be around her -- by all appearances -- and I'm not so sure her kids do, either. She's stuck at home by herself kicking cats. So why not spend her days ranting at people online? She has to get that bile and bitterness out one way or another.

This-- because truth be told, once their kids were gone, as a SAHW with no kids at home, and an internet based "job" she could have been traveling with him frequently on his trips, so they could do fun things together when he was off work, or add on weekends for fun in a variety of places. This is so common with my traveling friends-- because people who travel frequently for business garner free flights, so spouses can be taken along free, hotel rooms basically cost the same for one or two (and frequent travelers get free hotel rooms, too) and additional food costs are rarely prohibitive. I work with my husband, but there have been years that I had companion pass and could fly free with him any time during the year, and we often tack on a weekend after a working trip to play. Other friends schedule time to travel with their spouses both in the USA or internationally.

If Ken wanted Lorri around him while traveling, she could likely come along for free. But, she's a homebody and all that. :whistle: